From: "JP Kobryn (Meta)" <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
To: mark@harmstone.com, boris@bur.io, wqu@suse.com, dsterba@suse.com,
clm@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] btrfs: prevent direct reclaim during compressed readahead
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:52:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d8c0d07d-67a6-4ced-9096-e65aaa44cf5a@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260328214619.114790-1-jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
Hi Qu,
Can you give v2 a look?
On 3/28/26 2:46 PM, JP Kobryn (Meta) wrote:
> Under memory pressure, direct reclaim can kick in during compressed
> readahead. This puts the associated task into D-state. Then shrink_lruvec()
> disables interrupts when acquiring the LRU lock. Under heavy pressure,
> we've observed reclaim can run long enough that the CPU becomes prone to
> CSD lock stalls since it cannot service incoming IPIs. Although the CSD
> lock stalls are the worst case scenario, we have found many more subtle
> occurrences of this latency on the order of seconds, over a minute in some
> cases.
>
> Prevent direct reclaim during compressed readahead. This is achieved by
> using different GFP flags at key points when the bio is marked for
> readahead.
>
> There are two functions that allocate during compressed readahead:
> btrfs_alloc_compr_folio() and add_ra_bio_pages(). Both currently use
> GFP_NOFS which includes __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM.
>
> For the internal API call btrfs_alloc_compr_folio(), the signature changes
> to accept an additional gfp_t parameter. At the readahead call site, it
> gets flags similar to GFP_NOFS but stripped of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM.
> __GFP_NOWARN is added since these allocations are allowed to fail. Demand
> reads still use full GFP_NOFS and will enter reclaim if needed. All other
> existing call sites of btrfs_alloc_compr_folio() now explicitly pass
> GFP_NOFS to retain their current behavior.
>
> add_ra_bio_pages() gains a bool parameter which allows callers to specify
> if they want to allow direct reclaim or not. In either case, the
> __GFP_NOWARN flag was added unconditionally since the allocations are
> speculative.
>
> There has been some previous work done on calling add_ra_bio_pages() [0].
> This patch is complementary: where that patch reduces call frequency, this
> patch reduces the latency associated with those calls.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/656838ec1232314a2657716e59f4f15a8eadba64.1751492111.git.boris@bur.io/
>
> Signed-off-by: JP Kobryn (Meta) <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Harmstone <mark@harmstone.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - dropped patch 1/2, squashed into single patch based on David's feedback
> - changed btrfs_alloc_compr_folio() signature instead of new _gfp variant
> - update other existing callers to pass GFP_NOFS explicitly
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20260320073445.80218-1-jp.kobryn@linux.dev/
>
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-30 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-28 21:46 [RESEND PATCH v2] btrfs: prevent direct reclaim during compressed readahead JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-03-30 16:52 ` JP Kobryn (Meta) [this message]
2026-03-30 19:49 ` David Sterba
2026-03-30 20:34 ` David Sterba
2026-03-30 21:22 ` Qu Wenruo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d8c0d07d-67a6-4ced-9096-e65aaa44cf5a@linux.dev \
--to=jp.kobryn@linux.dev \
--cc=boris@bur.io \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-team@meta.com \
--cc=mark@harmstone.com \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox